I combined all CCL data to check with bigger sample size and it's actually not that bad for chaos even when not correcting for composition.
It's below 57% for basically all TV.
That's a little bit higher than other races at high TV, but not extreme in any way.
Interesting.

Some people feel it is, certainly. You're not exploring that fact by simply looking at the win rates of bash teams at high TV levels - that doesn't actually demonstrate that the teams they're playing are from a limited set of rosters. It actually hides that particular fact.

If you correct for composition you get win% for a random opponent, but you don't get a random opponent at high TV, you get a bash team.

Yes, but ultimately that is a measure of how a roster fares as compared to the other rosters - it is showing us what the win rates for each would be if they faced an equal number of each of the rosters available in the game. If you use win rates from any other context you're talking about win rates that result not from the design of the roster but from an interaction between the design and aspects of the specific play environment.

Another way of looking at it is it's a method we can use to see if the problem is the roster or something in its environment... just as we might do by comparing win rates from CCL to those of COL... and OCC... and FUMBBL's R.... and so on. It lets us know if the roster really does need changes as people whine that it does, or if the problem is NOT the roster at all.

If we had a lower TV ceiling or allow non-bash to survive better at high TV then claw/killstack wouldn't be considered a problem.

Unless you lowered the TV ceiling dramatically I doubt you'd see the fix you think you would - bash teams can create quite effective teams with low TV so long as they have enough time to develop one or two particularly nasty players. Better survivability for non-bash teams might lead to them being better represented at higher TVs, which might in turn result in lowered win rates for some of those bash teams at higher TV levels... but might also result in an over-representation of durable agility teams with astounding win rates up there.

We also don't know (as was discussed in this thread) whether people would stop caring about CPOMB if it didn't lead to long-term team damage. It may be that people don't like being denied the use of their players during a match and thus the short-term attrition aspect would continue to cause the same amount of complaints. We need some data from a large-scale rez league to see how rez affects concession rates before we can do more than guess at the relationship.

Unless you lowered the TV ceiling dramatically I doubt you'd see the fix you think you would - bash teams can create quite effective teams with low TV so long as they have enough time to develop one or two particularly nasty players.

Yes agree, my idea was that at lower TV the team composition is better so a killteam can't just focus on killing other bash and this would make them overall a bit less effective at winning.

Doesn't really seem to matter that much when it comes to winrates.
Composition doesn't seem to be as bad as I though at higher TV either.
Bash teams are however pretty popular at all TVs.

the problem isn't that chaos win too much but that they kill too much: people don't like losing their players. If this was a "winning" issue then people would be calling for elves to be nerfed.
But yes, improving survival rates for the high variance games would help people hold on to their precious pixels - hence the medical facility proposal.

Can't pixel huggers play rez? Can't we make an official rez ladder, with spp, to that end?

Thing is, even that can result in your staff being more like Harold Shipman than Florence Nightingale, so you can still get stomped and people will still complain.

That's what I believe too. Hence I don't really see the point of "fixing" the issue beside rez mode.

Yes agree, my idea was that at lower TV the team composition is better so a killteam can't just focus on killing other bash and this would make them overall a bit less effective at winning.

Right, but I suspect that'd change if you had something in place to lower the maximum practical TV. People may not aim for maximum efficiency at, say, 1500 or 1800 TV now, but if that was the practical maximum they would if only because there'd be no choice but to do so. Right now lower TV ranges may have more variety, petering out only when they hit the higher, bash-heavy ranges... lower the ranges and the lower range will be where those bash teams hang out instead.

If our method of attrition is to carry over on-pitch death and injury then there will always be a long-term advantage to having a team that is more resilient. If there's an advantage to having resilient teams then there will be a further advantage to having a team that functions best against such teams. Changing an environment's TV ranges would be like using a dry mop to clean up blood - it'd just push things around.

Doesn't really seem to matter that much when it comes to winrates.
Composition doesn't seem to be as bad as I though at higher TV either.

In CCL, but CCL isn't unlimited development - those teams get flushed into the sewers of COL after a few weeks. The real composition issues are going to be in COL.

If you want to look into CCL's issues, look at matches as a factor of time rather than TV - the major complaint I see from people is that new teams in CCL created after the season first gets moving, tend to face high development bash teams. I suspect there is a combination of issues at work there: fewer low-development teams available after the start of the season... fewer games played as people who are qualification-focused bow out, or play fewer games to avoid sustaining team damage prior to the tournament... and even TVPlus matching which will pick teams with crappy win rates to pair with new teams if the only opponents available are all at higher TVs.

In champ ladder clawpomb is just something you'll have to deal with and it's how some races play. Kill teams can frustrate but only on a 1 in 6 do you die so save your apo for a death or state down. Kill his killer I don't know but if you make it to the playoffs there a good chance you won't have to play a claw team.

Clawpomb block is at least 4 levels and if you play elves he will need tackle making it 5 so it will take that player time and in a 6 week ladder that resets it's hard to do and continue to win. Chaos and Nurgle are tough start teams with no skills and they come into their own in high TV whereas wood elves or dwarfs do pretty well at low tv so I guess I'm saying suck it up. Death of your pixels isn't the end of the world and you can buy more to step on and kill clawpombers.

I'd be fine with your idea of medical facilities too, but I think I'd prefer it to be a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game.

The problem with making it "one player" is the same as the current problem: the team which takes only one cas can potentially get 100% recovery while the team which takes 5 can max 20%. The idea is to equalise the rates.

I'll have to give it more thoughts because I don't see why we should equalise the rates.

Because it's unequal rates of attrition which lead to some teams surviving to high TV while others do not. Full rez would also equalise the rates at zero.

RRing for one player of your choice would already be amazing, that'd mean increasing considerably the survivability of your best pieces.

It would, but for those teams which take lots of damage they stand to lose more than one of those "best pieces". For teams which take few casualties it could prevent taking any damage at all from a match.

I don't even think we need any change to begin with but doing more than that, I just don't get it.

In general I agree, but it depends on what we are trying to do. If we're content with the status quo of team distribution in MM then do nothing, but if we are not then something must be done to change it. That something will, ideally, not involve any in-match changes so that BB is played the same as a match regardless of the format.

Can't pixel huggers play rez? Can't we make an official rez ladder, with spp, to that end?

Currently not an option. I'd have no issue if it were one so long as there was some form of long term attrition such as seasons.

That's what I believe too. Hence I don't really see the point of "fixing" the issue beside rez mode.

Well it would reduce the instances of it happening. That's no bad thing.

Ageing is a natural counter to that. Trust me it works. In Lil'skittles (before the tv500 rule came in) i had a Dwarf team with players that have been playing cose to 500 matches (487). With Ageing in place that would never happen.

I still have the team but i cant use it becuse there is no one to face off against anymore.

Ageing is the only attrition you need in a ress league as it would make you be able to make a team, stick with it and then it will naturaly die off so you have to make a new one. I think the max games you can have in ageing is 80 and then the player retire. And yes people do play that much in open league.

I would prefere to have Claw removed rather than starting a ress league tho. Getting injuries and deaths is part of the game, having half your team removed in one game and then have 50% loners next jsut to see the other half of your team get sent off to the next game etc etc is just not fun. Claw is the reason for that. PO is bad, yes but it has drawbacks, claws have no drawbacks.

The problem with making it "one player" is the same as the current problem: the team which takes only one cas can potentially get 100% recovery while the team which takes 5 can max 20%. The idea is to equalise the rates.

That's still an issue with your "medical facility" idea: it doesn't equalize the rates, it simply applies an equal reduction to the rates. Bash teams will still suffer less attrition in the long term, agility teams will still suffer more attrition in the long term.

I'll have to give it more thoughts because I don't see why we should equalise the rates.

Because unequal rates of attrition are ultimately what leads to uneven demographics at higher TV levels in unlimited play - the teams that suffer the least attrition are the ones that have the easiest time rising to and maintaining the highest TV levels, and in turn the teams which do best against those teams end up being the favourites. Claw teams are specifically made to counter highly resilient bash teams. If we removed claw, for example, we'd most likely see a wider variety of bash teams at higher TV levels... but it'd still be primarily bash teams.

@SuperGnu - yes, some people do play that much but it is far from the norm in Open Leagues: it is far more common in Scheduled Leagues.
As for ageing (Cyanide version, not LRB4), it doesn't give you the control Seasons does. For that reason I think Seasons will work better.

Claw is not the problem, despite the fact that you keep asserting it. The "half your team" scenario is relatively rare and due to high variance, and variance is increased by PO, not by Claw. The downsides are irrelevant to that.

@VoodooMike - yes, there is still a differential but in terms of absolutes it is far smaller. The only way to make rates entirely equal is full rez with an off-pitch mechanism (such as Seasons), but not everyone wants that: mitigation is a halfway house.

@VoodooMike - yes, there is still a differential but in terms of absolutes it is far smaller.

What's the appropriate maximum level of attrition? I mean, if everyone suffers half as much, but still uneven, levels of attrition does that fix things? What about 30% as much? 60%? It's not as serious a fix as you make it out to be.

The only way to make rates entirely equal is full rez with an off-pitch mechanism (such as Seasons), but not everyone wants that: mitigation is a halfway house.

Not true. Certainly rez is the most simple and easy method to equalize attrition rates it is not the only way... but equalization of attrition rates is what is needed to fix the long-term demographic balance in any unlimited play environment.

Back in 2012 I posted a proposition for the "Niggle System" which replaced all injuries and deaths with niggles, and allowed teams to heal niggles for different gold costs based on the level of the player and the roster. You could use the same system without replacing injuries with niggles, and simply treat deaths as an injury (meaning the player is still on the roster, just dead and always treated as MNG until removed or healed). The system equalizes attrition rates without being rez. I imagine there are other non-rez possibilities, they'll just be more complex than rez.

I didn't say it was a "complete fix", I said it was better. Not everyone wants rez, but some people seem to want more longevity to their teams. I also suspect that a reduction in the ability to cause long-term damage will also have an effect on the desire to play damage-causing teams. Not as much effect as the removal of it, ofc, but it's still better.

...and I asked you what the target level of attrition was. I mean "better" is a pretty subjective concept... I can agree it would result in "less" long-term attrition, but how much less? enough less? too much less? It's arbitrary, and by your own admission doesn't fix the problem, only ameliorates it based on the metric of "less is better, but not none because reasons".

By its design it is equal at all points, though certainly it favours teams that are close to the roster average for attrition. Prior to a designated point it makes it easy to repair damage to one's team, becoming increasingly difficult to do as the team's development approaches that designated point, and then prohibitively hard to negate ALL team damage as a team goes beyond it. The designated point is configurable, and the scaling difficulty is equal for every roster without altering on-pitch rules or numbers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the best idea is rez possibly with a secondary attrition system like BB2016 seasons... but rez is not the only possible method for equalizing long-term attrition rates - it's just the most reasonable, easiest to understand, and easiest to implement (if only because.. y'know... it's already there in BB2.. they just need to uncouple it from negating development).

Is there one outside MM? R didn't have a huge imbalance, neither do leagues - certainly not anywhere near the scale of MM.

Not at the scale we see in strictly MM open play. In challenge people will simply refuse to play teams they consider a threat, so in a challenge based environment it is unlikely to develop into much of a problem... anywhere that one cannot choose one's opponents it will, and the rate at which that happens will be based on how frequently people play matches.

Less than we have now, clearly, but as much as is generally acceptable. Ultimately we are only responding to complaints from people who don't like the current levels in MM environments, so it will rather depend on feedback. It's a "how long is a piece of string" question. I know you hate those, and so do I, but it's a subjective matter.

While it would probably be beneficial for you to either link to it or explain it again, another problem with your niggle system is that it's a completely new mechanism. It comes across as a very large sticking plaster. A benefit of "more apo's" is it's a known method of mitigating attrition - same with rez. The difference between the two is that rez is absolute: it's no attrition (outside of adding an out-of-match method, something to which I would not be averse).

anywhere that one cannot choose one's opponents it will, and the rate at which that happens will be based on how frequently people play matches.

I agree that is down to frequency rather than number of matches: it takes far less real-time to restart a screwed team in MM than it does in a scheduled league. Challenge answers that problem by making it less easy to use a killer team because people won't play against them (as much).

@SuperGnu - yes, some people do play that much but it is far from the norm in Open Leagues: it is far more common in Scheduled Leagues.
As for ageing (Cyanide version, not LRB4), it doesn't give you the control Seasons does. For that reason I think Seasons will work better.

Claw is not the problem, despite the fact that you keep asserting it. The "half your team" scenario is relatively rare and due to high variance, and variance is increased by PO, not by Claw. The downsides are irrelevant to that.

Actually it is not very rare to lose close to or even half your team when you run in to 4-7 CPOMB players on the other side. If you are lucky you only get KO and BH but it is not that uncommon to have players miss the next game in various damages thanks to a CPOMB team. So far i have never had that vs POMB. Only when you factor in Claw it happens. Claw and MB should be mutualy excluded if they are not gona remove claw all togheter.

Actually it is not very rare to lose close to or even half your team when you run in to 4-7 CPOMB players on the other side. If you are lucky you only get KO and BH but it is not that uncommon to have players miss the next game in various damages thanks to a CPOMB team. So far i have never had that vs POMB. Only when you factor in Claw it happens. Claw and MB should be mutualy excluded if they are not gona remove claw all togheter.

You don't see 4-7 CPOMB players that often at all, though. 2 is far more common, and actually generally less bloaty than 4.
Plenty of teams do see similar levels of damage vs POMB, particularly AV7 teams vs TPOMB.

PO's variance combines with perception bias exaggerating the effect of claw (vs the expected effect of AV9) to make it seem like claw is the issue when it is actually PO causing those relatively few particularly high-damage games. Take a look at the data and the maths.